#ace discourse anon II

[bookshelfdreams]

Anon II: So you see being ace/aro as not wanting to be close to someone- yeah I can understand that. Do you feel like you're oppressed/ostracized because you don't experience those feelings? I think, as a non-ace person, one of the reasons there is this Discourse is because so many ace folks experience and describe being ace in different ways, and non-ace people just see it as normal deviations of levels of sexual expression. Meanwhile, if you ID as gay, it generally means you (1/2)

(2/2) experience attraction towards people of your own gender. There are some nuances of course, but it doesn't seem to be as wide a spectrum as asexuality.

Hmmm, you’re probably right, but then again, being gay (or bi) is also a concept most people know about :)

Do I feel oppressed - that is such a loaded question. I feel othered, and occasionally dehumanized but not discriminated, if that makes sense. But this is probably because I am a white european, so I am already very privileged to begin with.

[evilsnowswan]

(different anon) ...but asexuals aren't LGBT?!?!

OH, NOT THIS AGAIN. Okay, listen. I’ve seen the discourse, I get it. And believe it or not, I even (partially) agree with you (on some level). 

I can understand why some LGBT folk might be wary about having hetero-romatic aces in their safe spaces. I know why ace people are drawn to a community that they feel - at least a little bit - understood by. The “gay experience” and the “ace experience” share some common ground, but are different enough to warrant the wish/need for separate (sub-)communities. There are good arguments for and against the inclusion of hetero-romantic aces in LGBT spaces. Try Decker’s The Invisible Orientation (Part II: “Asexual Experiences: Society, Discrimination, and Queer Communities”). She covers the topic/ issue well, imo, outlining where each group is coming from. 

However, saying that (aro) aces simply are “people who don’t have sex,” and are “therefore straight”, is both inaccurate and damaging. 

Asexuality is an orientation, not a choice. Having or not having sex is a behavior. Celibacy is a choice. Asexuality is neither of the two. Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction. Telling asexuals they are “straight(-passing)” or that they have “straight privilege” when they are very clearly *not* straight, is offensive and incorrect (and erasure!). As a matter of fact, aros/aces are frequently told they aren’t allowed to sit at the “LGBT table”, but aren’t welcome at the “straight table” either. And with only an estimated 1% of the population being ace, you know, people get lonely sometimes sitting at an almost empty table in the corner by themselves, being yelled at from all other tables.       

I identify as bi, as well as somewhere on the ace-spectrum. To me, it feels like having drawn the short ends of two similar branches of the same stick. I can’t separate my experiences as a bi woman from those as an a-spec woman, or separate my bi/ace experiences from womanhood. They are all part of who I am, and unraveling them seems pointless to me. That said, I am conflicted when it comes to the LGBT/ace-inclusion discourse; both wary of the gatekeepers AND the (hetero-romantic!) aces trying to push into spaces where they aren’t welcome (and potentially derailing/dominating a conversation that isn’t about them). 

I do believe aces and LGBT folk make good allies. They have a lot to offer to each other. Also, both ultimately strive for the same goal - to live a happy life, free of the expectations and hardships placed upon the individual by a hetero(sexual)normative society. So let’s be friends, not assholes, okay?

[bookshelfdreams]

Anon II: True, the idea of being gay/bi/pan has more visibility. And then, sexuality is obviously complex and there's so many different layers (IE Kinsey scale and all) and I don't want anyone to feel othered or broken, it sucks. Relating back to the original post, I just think it is good everyone takes a look at their preferences re: sex/sexuality and really examine them, as I think it's always good to be healthily critical with ourselves. Like, examine why you like people who (1/2)

(2/2) look a certain way, or why you have a certain kink or whatever. I’ve seen stories of people realizing they weren’t asexual, and instead they had internalized homophobia to an intense degree. Not saying that’s everyone who is ace/aro of course, I just wonder how often people lie to themselves about things because of what society is telling them is acceptable or not. I just want people to be happy with who they are.

Sorry for the late answer I kind of fell asleep at night.Of course, internalized homophobia is terrible, but I have a problem with people who identify as ace due to it and then claim this is means asexuality is a harmful concept in general. I mean, I am happy for everyone who discoveres their true selves but lets not forget that there are also a lot of ace and a-spec people who think they are wrong and broken before they discover there’s words for how they feel and a whole community for people like them.It’s why I think its a really bad idea to go around and claim a-spec orientstions are not real or somehow less valid than others, because for so many people it just reinforces that feeling of “how I am and how I feel is wrong” I just want everyone to be happy with themselves, too.

[bookshelfdreams]

2nd Anon comin' in once more- first thanks for not jumping down my throat too much. I legit just want to understand asexuality/aspec/aro people and views. I've always understood sexual attraction as, "Ah yes this person is super cute and nice and we get along I want to go on dates and kiss and hold hands and watch Food network together". It's a mix of my romantic and sexual desires, it's who I want to be in a committed long-term relationship with. And I say I experience it rarely because (1/2)

(2/2) It feels like I as an "allosexual" (a term I dislike) am expected to feel it for every person I come across that is conventionally attractive? But I don't? I see ace people talking about their lack of sexual attraction and I feel like, "That's... not what sexual attraction is?" And I dislike the idea of 'normal' levels of sexual attraction, because for something so personal there is no normal, and to imply there is really others people in my POV.

I kinda worried I came off as a bit hostile, so I’m glad I didn’t too much (apparently).

idk who you have been talking to that made you feel this way (and I am sorry you do) because “allosexual” really doesn’t mean “feels sexual attraction for every person they come across”; it just means “not a-spec”. I dislike the idea of “normal” levels of sexual attraction as well, because, like you said, that is different for everyone and also implies that everyone who deviates from that level (in both “directions”) is abnormal, or wrong. So I’m glad we agree on that :)

For me (because lack of sexual and romantic attraction is kind of intertwined for me, too), when I see a beautiful person or meet someone who’s interesting, they are literally just that. Beautiful, like a painting, or a cloudy sky, or an apple tree in bloom is beautiful, and interesting as in “I am interested in what you have to say”. I do not want to have them in my personal space (I don’t want to share, for example, my room or apartment with anyone), I do not want to hold their hand, or kiss them (or be kissed), or like ... do romantic stuff, like dates. It low key freaks me out when people try to flirt and I hate being touched (with few exceptions). I think about attraction as “I want to be as close to you as possible” (physically, emotionally, etc), and I just never really feel like that. So like. That all factors into saying “I’m aroace”.

Of course, I don’t think people who aren’t ace feel all of that all of the time. And I figure there is a lot of miscommunication, because it is human nature to think of our own experience as universal, which is why I think it’s really important to have this kind of conversations :)

[bookshelfdreams]

Hey 2nd anon again, I think you missed the point? First sorry about sapio, I've just seen it included in aspec. Second, I don't want to delegitimize asexuality, I just find some things regarding gray and Demi problematic. How much attraction is 'normal'? What is attraction anyway? I've never seen aces/non-aces agree. And if gray/Demi people only experience it sometimes, then I count since I'm a bi woman and not always sexually attracted to people. The spectrum makes me feel icky, (1/2)

(2/2) since it implies that there are people who are always on sexually, when in reality, everyone has shifting moods and desires. In fact, people can even have conflicting desires! I know I do. I just don't know if calling that a sexuality is really appropriate? 

First off, I am neither grey nor demi, so I am not the best person to speak on this subject.

How regularly someone has to experience sexual attraction to make them allo is a question everyone has to answer for themselves. If someone is so rarely attracted to other people that it sets them apart from allo people, then that’s good enough for me; why shouldn’t it be appropriate for people to have words to describe their identity? Everything in the world (including all sexualities) exists on a spectrum, so why is it the ace/aro spectrum specifically that offends you so much? I mean, I can’t fully understand (for example) demi people either but that doesn’t give me the right to call their orientation problematic or insist that they shouldn’t be able to describe themselves? The existence of a-spec people has no impact on how other people experience their sexual orientation, and it doesn’t imply that everyone else is constantly attracted to everyone they see. Of course desires fluctuate! But if someone tells me that their experience is fundamentally different from mine, who am I to tell them they’re wrong?

About what attraction is, let me ask you right back: What is sexual attraction? I take it you do experience it, so you are far more qualified to answer that than me. And if you feel that you experience it rarely in comparison to others (or only if you are already very close to someone), then yeah, maybe you can call yourself grey-a or demi? If you want. If you don’t, then don’t. I guess I just have a hard time understanding your exact problem here.